Tom Hall wrote (on 03.09.2006 17:01): > Is RAR that much more efficient that ZIP?
Comparison of archivers is kind of beyond the scope of this group but I can simply say RAR usually 5%-30% more efficient than ZIP, especially for a large group of small files. I've created many thousands of RAR archives or converted ZIPs to RARs and never ever seen that RAR had a worse compressionrate than ZIP. RAR also utilizes specialized compression algorithms for image, sound and common binary files like exe, dll, ocx, etc. And it has an extremely flexible *and* more importantly most reliable set of features (like volumes, recovery info, storage of ACLs) and corresponding set of commandline options. Take a bunch of ZIP files, say 500-600 MB, ideally with different origin and types of content. Open WinRar, click "convert archives" under Tool. Choose your files, set compression to max, let RAR do its magic, and see the difference yourself. On the following page, you'll see RAR has one of the best tradeoffs btw compression and speed, while still having one of the highest compression rates: http://www.maximumcompression.com/data/summary_mf2.php More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_archivers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAR Regards, Cüneyt Attention: PowerPro's Web site has moved: http://www.ppro.org Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/power-pro/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
